This brief responds to four questions posed by the California Supreme Court, including what the differences are between domestic partnership and marriage; what the fundamental right to marry protects; whether the name of marriage could be changed; and the impact, if any, of the federal Full Faith and Credit and Privileges and Immunities Clauses on this case.

This brief replies to the briefs filed by the State of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Campaign for California Families and demonstrates why it violates the rights of privacy, due process, intimate association, expression and equality under the California Constitution to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry.

Appellant's opening brief argues that AB 205, California's domestic partnership law, should give same-sex couples the same protection under the state's "putative spouse doctrine" as people in different-sex relationships who believed they were married, and have lived their life as married, only to find out later that their marriage was not valid. The brief argues that the court has the power to shield same-sex couples from being treated as legal strangers when they seek to unwind their relationships, and that failing to provide domestic partners access to court for fairly dividing their assets, as putative spouses are provided, violates the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Brief filed in the California Supreme Court explaining why right-wing religious groups should not be allowed to participate as parties in our litigation seeking the right to marry for same-sex couples.